Three and a half seasons. Over 7 million pitches. And a clear signal buried in the data.

From 2024 to 2026, slugging percentage against the college four-seam fastball dropped from .530 to .503. Barrel rate fell from 21.5% to 19.9%. The rate of well-struck balls in the optimal launch angle window (exit velocity 95+, launch angle 10–30°) declined from 19.1% to 17.5%. From 2023 to 2026, four-seam usage dropped from 51.7% of all pitches thrown to 46.0%. Cutter usage more than doubled, from 2.2% to 5.8%, and the curveball went from 6.9% to 7.8%.

The four-seam fastball is getting harder to square up and being thrown less. Both things are happening at once, and they’re connected.

This isn’t a college baseball original. MLB went through the same shift starting around 2022, when front offices and pitching labs concluded that the four-seamer was most dangerous when it was of better quality and used less frequently. High-IVB fastballs surrounded by well-designed secondaries outperformed high-usage fastball-heavy approaches. As a result, hard contact declined and arsenal construction got smarter. The blueprint was built at the pro level. What’s happening in college baseball now is that blueprint trickling down through coaching hires, private training facilities, and a data infrastructure that didn’t exist at this level three years ago. The results are arriving in the data right on schedule.

The Fastball Is Getting Better. Velocity Isn’t the Only Reason.

The instinct is to credit velo, and that’s not entirely wrong. Power 4 programs have seen average fastball velocity climb from 91.1 mph to 91.5 mph, with the 90th percentile jumping a half mile per hour, from 94.5 to 95.0. More gas at the elite level should mean harder pitches to square up, but the whiff data doesn’t cooperate with that narrative. InZoneWhiff% held at 13.1% in 2024 and barely moved to 12.9% in 2026. K% is flat across all three seasons. Hitters aren’t missing the fastball any more than they did. They’re just hitting it softer when they connect.

Despite the velo increase, the batted ball data shows the fingerprint of a pitch that’s seen a meaningful shape adjustment.

The core mechanism is induced vertical break. A four-seamer with elite IVB creates a perceptual illusion, meaning the hitter’s brain calculates that the ball will drop to a lower point than it actually arrives at. Induced vertical break on four seamers has increased from 15.6 in 2024 to 16.2 in 2026 (Power 4 up to 16.9”). High-IVB fastballs result in swings that end up underneath the pitch. The result isn’t always a miss, oftentimes it’s a weak pop-up or a topped grounder instead of a barrel. Chase rate reinforces this interpretation. Hitters chased the four-seamer 22.2% of the time in 2024. By 2026, that number dropped to 21.0%. Hitters are laying off the pitch more and still producing softer contact when they do swing.

If the pitch were simply harder to track at higher velocity, you’d expect chase rates to go up as hitters expand their zones against a pitch they can’t time up. Instead it went down. That means hitters aren’t being fooled by the pitch, they’re being beaten by it when it’s in the zone. The shape of the fastball is winning the at-bat, not just the velo reading. The best part is that shape is something that gets built deliberately behind the scenes

The Infrastructure Behind the Improvement

TrackMan has gone from 169 college programs in 2023 to 256 in 2026. Rapsodo is inside hundreds more across all levels. The practical effect of that buildout is that a college pitcher can now sit in a bullpen session and see in real time the spin efficiency, induced vertical break, spin axis, and tilt of every four-seamer they throw. The feedback loop that used to take a career now takes a single off season.

The coaching staff transformation matters just as much as the tools. Dedicated “Director of Pitching Development” and “Director of Analytics” roles, positions that barely existed five years ago, are now standard hires across the sport. Schools like Missouri and Texas Tech brought in Paradigm Player Development Solutions to build their player development infrastructure with analytics-first development and consulting. Additionally, where scouting reports once offered vague summaries like “this guy’s 86 to 88 with a slider”, they now detail pitch usage by count, movement profiles, hitter tendencies, and shape-specific performance data. The people building fastballs have changed. The results are showing up in season wide trends.

Sitting upstream of college programs is a private training ecosystem that has been doing this work for years. Facilities with TrackMan and Rapsodo run pitch design sessions for high school and college pitchers year-round, building fastball profiles around spin axis, wrist orientation, and release point before those players ever get to a college campus. Players are arriving at programs today with more data-informed repetitions on their four-seamer than any previous generation. The quality shows when they get there.

One specific problem the data infrastructure is helping solve is what people call the “deadzone” fastball, a movement profile range where a fastball’s IVB and horizontal break are too similar, producing a blended, predictable shape that elite hitters can easily barrel up. Research using Power 4 TrackMan data identified this phenomenon at the college level and found that many pitchers were throwing deadzone fastballs not because they lacked the physical profile to throw a better pitch, but because nobody was measuring it. When coaches can see the movement plot in real time, the correction is actionable within a single bullpen. That population of college fastballs is migrating away from hittable shapes and missing barrels.

The Power 4 / non-Power 4 split is the clearest proof of mechanism. Non-Power 4 velocity hasn’t moved across the same three-year window. If raw physical development were driving the hard contact decline, that split wouldn’t exist. The programs with better infrastructure are producing better fastball shapes. The disparity is a resource and data application gap, not a talent gap, and it will continue to narrow as the tools and insight continue to spread downward.

Why the Fastball Is Being Thrown Less

The hard contact decline is one half of the fastball story. The usage decline is equally important and directly related.

As pitch design infrastructure matured, it didn’t just make fastballs better. Secondaries became more valuable. The cutter is the clearest example. Nearly doubling from 3.2% to 5.8% of total pitches, it’s now the fastest-growing pitch in college baseball. The reasons are structural. The cutter lives 2–5 mph below a pitcher’s fastball, generating late horizontal movement that disrupts timing in ways a four-seamer can’t, and it is a pitch that can be taught with relative ease. Additionally, TrackMan data and pronation/supination bias can identify which pitchers have the spin profile and wrist orientation to throw a true cutter. That ability to know who should throw it and how to build it has made the pitch accessible to a much wider population of college arms than ever before. Where pitchers used to stumble into cut accidentally because of natural wrist orientation, programs are now building cutters on purpose.

The curveball’s rise follows the same logic. Thrown at a 6.9% rate in 2023 and a 7.8% clip in 2026, the raw numbers look small, but they are significant. The sweeper’s explosion as the dominant breaking ball created a secondary problem called pitch decay. When the sweeper becomes a pitcher’s most-used offspeed offering, the pitch eventually loses its teeth. Hitters see the shape too often, too early. The curveball solves that. It’s a true shape separator with enough vertical depth to live in a completely different visual plane and it has become the preferred early-count strike-stealer for pitchers who need a pitch that doesn’t eat into their slider’s effectiveness later in an at-bat. The curveball isn’t replacing the slider. It’s protecting it.

The result is a four-seam fastball that’s being asked to do less work by design. Programs now understand that a high-IVB fastball is most effective when contrasted against pitches that move in opposite directions with depth. The fastball establishes the vertical plane. The arsenal around it creates the tunnel. A 46% fastball rate with a well-designed supporting cast is a more dangerous pitching plan than a 48.6% rate built around weaker secondaries. Usage went down because pitch calling got smarter, not weaker.

Paradigm Saw This Coming

The trends in the aggregate data don’t surprise us. They confirm what we’ve been building toward with our partner programs for the last two years.

When Paradigm works with a program, the starting point is always the same, assess fastball quality first. Not velocity in isolation. Not usage. Quality. What does the shape look like relative to the pitcher’s arm slot and release? Where is shape quality leaving value on the table? What does the arsenal look like around it, and is the fastball being deployed in a way that maximizes its effectiveness? Those questions drive everything.

The data from Paradigm partner schools reflects that philosophy. From 2025 to 2026, our programs’ average fastball velocity climbed from 89.2 to 90.1 mph and average IVB improved from 15.3 inches to 16.9 inches. This is a meaningful shape gain that goes well beyond what a velocity bump alone would produce. These year to year trends are the direct output of intentional fastball development baked into how we consult.

The work looks different at every program, but the direction is consistent. At Columbia University, we ran a staff-wide velocity program in the fall built around individualized throwing progressions, strength work, and TrackMan-tracked bullpen sessions designed to maximize each pitcher’s physical ceiling heading into the spring. At South Alabama, the fall work centered on a staff-wide pitch design revamp by evaluating every pitcher’s fastball shape relative to their arm slot, identifying shape inefficiencies, and building the offseason around correcting them before live competition. Both programs arrived at their 2026 seasons with better fastballs than they left with in 2025.

The most complete example of what this philosophy produces in-game is Fairleigh-Dickinson University. In 2025, FDU’s pitching staff threw fastballs 51% of the time, a rate that put them slightly above national averages and left their pitchers arsenals under leveraged. Working with Paradigm, the staff identified that their fastball quality had improved enough to be used more selectively and that their secondaries were strong enough to carry a heavier workload. By 2026, fastball usage dropped to 37%. That’s a 14-percentage-point shift in pitch calling philosophy, backed by data that told us the arsenal could support it. The result is FDU’s best start in the last ten years.

That’s the point the league-wide data is making, and it’s the point Paradigm has been operating on: the four-seam fastball is most valuable when it’s the best version of itself, thrown at the right time, with a supporting cast designed to make it impossible to sit on. Usage goes down, quality goes up, and the results follow.

The Floor Has Risen. The Ceiling Is Still Open.

The data from 2024 to 2026 shows a sport in the middle of a transformation, not at the end of one.

Non-Power 4 velocity slowly starting to increase while Power 4 velocity continues to rise is a preview of what happens as tools spread further down the competitive ladder. Cutter and curveball usage trending up is a preview of what happens as pitch design literacy becomes standard operating procedure rather than a Power conference advantage. The hard contact decline happening while whiff rates stay flat is a preview of what a fully optimized college fastball looks like when the development system is working the way it’s supposed to.

92 is the new 90. College freshmen are showing up with better shapes, better physical profiles, and better data literacy than any previous class. The MLB blueprint has officially arrived in college baseball as an operating reality for the programs that have built the infrastructure to execute it. And what the in-game data shows is that it’s working.

The four-seam fastball isn’t going anywhere. It’s just being built and used differently. Different foundations of usage, pitch design, and a surrounding arsenal designed to make fastballs more dangerous than they’ve ever been. The hitters on the other side of it are paying for it in the contact numbers. Three years in, the trend line only points one direction.

Written By: Thomas Santana

Although important, the common thread isn’t always velocity gains. Most of the time, it’s adding a new pitch, refining pitch usage, and more clarity in the development process. Across college baseball, Paradigm-supported teams have leaned into a development model built around pitch quality, command training, and disrupting hitter decision-making.

Heading into 2026, the arms most primed to take that leap aren’t reinventing the wheel. They are refining their arsenals by leaning into pitches that fit, relentlessly training command, and optimizing usage based on how hitters actually respond. Small changes in mix, shape, or sequencing can create massive performance swings when they’re intentional.

This article highlights three college pitchers from Paradigm client programs who check every breakout box heading into the 2026 season.

1. Max Miller — LHP | University of South Alabama (2026 elig.)

Max Miller is a left-handed arm that oozes starter material. After spending 2023 and 2024 at Mississippi State and posting a strong 2025 season at Pearl River CC, Miller is now at South Alabama and brings a profile built for durability, sequencing, and weak contact. Miller boasts four distinct shapes, funky left handed mechanics, and a platoon-neutral arsenal that plays up even more when his overall strike rate pushes past 65%.

2025 — Pearl River CC

• 19 APP | 5 GS | 59.1 IP | 2.12 ERA | 1.06 WHIP | 72 K | 24 BB | 5 SV

Arsenal Breakdown:

Miller’s four distinct shapes create a balanced, platoon-neutral mix. His consistent release height across pitches, deceptive lefty delivery, and above-average extension are all desirable release traits. Everything plays off his fastball.

Fastball (106 MM stuff+)
This is a low-90s cut-ride heater from a bow-and-arrow style arm action with plus extension that gets on hitters quickly and plays at the top of the zone. This fall, Miller zoned the fastball 56% of the time, proving he can live in the strike zone with it and create whiffs.

Slider (111 MM Stuff+)
Hard gyro slider at 82–84 mph that tunnels well off the fastball. Primary offspeed to LHH. Generated a 35% chase and 38% whiff in Fall 2025.

Changeup (110+ MM Stuff+)
True time-disruptor and main weapon to RHH. ~10 mph velo separation and 10 inches of vertical separation off the fastball along with plus arm-side action. 38% whiff this fall. Another offering that plays well off of the fastball.

Curveball (108 MM Stuff+)
Big breaking ball that adds a fourth velocity band (90–92, 82–84, 80–82, 75–77). Nearly 30 inches of vertical separation off the fastball. Serves as a strike stealer and protects the slider from overuse.

Fall 2025: The Jump

What separated Max Miller this fall was the clarity in his process. The arsenal was already there, but the fall showed a pitcher who understood how his pitches are supposed to work together. Miller consistently pounded the zone with a platoon-neutral mix, attacking hitters instead of nibbling, and the control gains were impossible to miss. Miller having only one walk all fall is a reflection of his improved body control, cleaner direction down the mound, and a much more repeatable release across all four pitches.

From a pure stuff perspective, the numbers confirm the eye test. Miller finished the fall with all four pitches graded above 105 Mid-Major Stuff+, including two north of 110. That kind of across-the-board quality is rare at the college level and speaks to why his arsenal plays up without truly elite velocity. Having 4 shapes and a left-handed angle are great, but the biggest driver this fall was the intent behind his pitches.

The fastball miss profile tells the story. Instead of leaking arm-side or yanking gloveside, Miller’s misses lived up in the zone, where his cut-ride heater does the most damage. When he went to the breaking ball, the misses shifted appropriately gloveside and down, especially with the slider. That kind of vertical and lateral miss consolidation makes hitters expect strikes more often, and it showed up in his Paradigm+ charts at the end of the fall.

Paradigm+ reinforces how clearly defined his plan has become. Right-handed hitters were consistently challenged with fastballs at the top rail before being put away with changeups and curveballs that lived below the barrel. Left-handed hitters saw a steady diet of sliders that tunneled off the heater and forced uncomfortable swing decisions. Nothing felt random, and Miller executed his sequences with conviction.

The most encouraging part is that this jump still leaves room for growth. As Miller continues to trust his offspeed in hitters counts, the arsenal has another gear to reach. Fall 2025 was about doubling down on the conviction that made him great in 2025. That mix of confidence and talent is usually where real breakouts begin.

Max Miller already checks the hardest boxes: shape diversity, improved strike throwing, and a fastball everything else feeds off of. With continued command emphasis and unpredictable usage sequencing, he profiles as a lefty who can turn lineups over and anchor a rotation. Miller is a high-floor arm that will be a great addition for South Alabama in 2026.

2. Javyn Pimental — LHP | Missouri University (2026 elig.)

The second arm we’re projecting for a breakout in 2026 is Missouri left-hander Javyn Pimental. After missing the entirety of the 2025 spring and summer while recovering from Tommy John surgery, Pimental enters 2026 positioned to re-establish himself as one of the SEC’s most reliable innings eaters. He was a bright spot for the Tigers in 2024, earning the trust of the coaching staff through consistency, strike throwing, and an advanced feel for sequencing.

Pimental isn’t a flashy power arm, but he doesn’t need to be. His profile is built around command, deception, and elite control of his entire arsenal. Few pitchers in the country control the strike zone as well as he does, and that skill set gives him a high floor with room for more as his arsenal continues to evolve.

2024 — Mizzou

• 11 GS | 42.1 IP | 31 H | 46 K | 3.61 ERA | 1.08 WHIP

Arsenal Breakdown:

Sinker (96 Power 4 Stuff+) — 89–91 mph with heavy sink and arm side run. 52% IZ in 2024, proving it to be an elite strike pitch and weak contact inducer.

Slider (98 Power 4 Stuff+) — 78–80 mph two-plane sweeper shape that zoned 40% of the time in 2024. Whiff-ability to both LHH and RHH when down and to his gloveside.

Changeup (86 Power 4 Stuff+) — 82–84 mph “disguise” changeup. Tunnels extremely well off the fastball because of shape similarity and gets tons of RHH whiff due to the moderate velocity difference and execution in advantage counts. Lowest usage but highest chase (49%) and whiff (47%) of all pitch types in 2024.

Pimental’s performance profile in 2024 was built on his secondaries and ability to execute with precision. Despite never throwing a pitch over 92 mph, he posted a .122 BAA (.214 xWOBA) on his slider and a .077 BAA (.241 xWOBA) on his changeup. That is clear evidence that both secondaries function as elite run suppressors.

FALL 2025: The Return

After a slow build up from Tommy John surgery in 2024, Pimental was back on the mound at Mizzou this fall. Early bullpen sessions showed all the familiar traits from his 2024 form. Fastball velocity sat within 1–2 mph of his previous game levels, and the slider maintained its shape throughout the recovery process — two strong indicators of a healthy return heading into 2026.

Just as important, the fall was time for him to tinker with his arsenal. The primary adjustment has been the introduction of a second fastball shape. After leaning heavily on a sinker-dominant approach in 2024 (nearly 60% usage), Pimental and the staff have begun building out a four-seam fastball that plays more effectively at the top of the zone. We believe that multi-fastball arsenals will explode in 2026, and Javyn is a perfect candidate. The goal isn’t to throw fewer fastballs; it’s to give hitters two different visuals. With both a sinker and a four-seam in play, hitters can no longer sit on one fastball visual, even in hitters counts.

Ideally, Pimental maintains his sinker profile under 10 inches of IVB while developing a four-seam shape that carries north of 14 inches. That gap isn’t easy to sustain, but leaning into location bias and intent provides a clear path forward. The four-seam must live up in the zone and miss up, and the sinker must stay down and arm-side, with misses following the same pattern. After using the fall to find a solid grip and feel for the four seam, continuing to hammer the intent and attack zones of the two fastballs will be key for him in 2026. We also would not be surprised if his arsenal expands in other areas.

It almost feels like cheating to pick Pimental as a breakout pick for 2026 given his track record, but after an 18 month absence, the college baseball world needs to remember how good he is. 95 mph fastballs are nice, but the pitchers who can constantly outperform their stuff in the best conference in college baseball deserve all the recognition they can get. Look for Pimental to be a bright spot in the Mizzou rotation this spring.

James Lordi — LHP | Long Island University (2026 elig.)

James Lordi enters 2026 as one of the more intriguing breakout candidates in the NEC. The UCF transfer is coming off a strong summer in the NECBL and a productive developmental fall at LIU, where his role has expanded well beyond that of a traditional left-handed specialist. What once made Lordi effective in short stints now provides the foundation for a legitimate starting pitcher profile.

At UCF, Lordi was deployed primarily as a matchup-based arm, leaning heavily on his ability to manipulate the slider against left-handed hitters. Since transferring, his arsenal and usage have evolved, and the indicators now point toward a platoon-neutral mix capable of handling a starter’s workload in 2026.

NECBL — Summer 2025

• 9 APP | 3 GS | 19IP | 20H | 22K | 7BB | 5.68 ERA

Arsenal Breakdown:

Four Seam Fastball (93 MM Stuff+) — 87–89 mph cut ride shape from avg release height (5.7’). Plays best to the top of the zone.

Slider (102 MM Stuff+) — 77–79 mph “baby sweeper” shape. Best pitch, lefty killer.

Cutter (94 MM Stuff+) — 83–86 mph true cutter shape. Perfect bridge pitch and weak contact inducer for RHH.

Changeup (89 MM Stuff+) — 80–82 mph offering that was underdeveloped; has potential for low spin and arm side fade to balance out arsenal. Kick change candidate?

FALL 2025: The Transition

The clearest development for Lordi has been his transition away from a specialist role. In 2026, he will face more right-handed hitters than ever before, making arsenal balance a key driver of performance. Fortunately, Lordi already possesses the core traits of a platoon-neutral pitcher, headlined by a cutter that bridges the gap between his fastball and slider.

His cutter jumps out as the primary weapon to bridge the gap between lefty specialist and proven starter. Lordi’s cutter has high spin capacity and velocity along with visible glove-side movement. For an arm that is only 87–89 mph on his fastball, the cutter will act as a second fastball to RHH, making those high-eighties heaters get on hitters a lot quicker. Furthermore, the cutter only gets better the harder he throws in-season.

Lordi’s ceiling is tied directly to how well he controls the strike zone with all four pitches. A slider-heavy approach to left-handed hitters paired with increased cutter usage to right-handed hitters should allow him to maximize the effectiveness of his fastball. Fastball zone rate is the most important performance indicator for him. The more consistently Lordi throws his fastball for strikes, the more pressure he puts on hitters to expand the zone against pitches that look similar out of the hand, like the cutter and changeup. When hitters are forced to respect the fastball in the zone, chase rates and poor swing decisions will increase across the board.

Arsenal refinement remains the next step for Lordi. Developing the changeup into a reliable late-count option against right-handed hitters would dramatically reduce his reliance on batted-ball luck and help convert more plate appearances into strikeouts. With fastballs and cutters attacking the inner half to RHH, a changeup that fades away from the righty barrel would add huge swing-and-miss upside.

What makes Lordi especially exciting is how much room remains for growth. With just a handful of innings logged last season, his developmental runway is long. A small velocity bump, continued command and arsenal refinement, and clearer usage decisions could quickly elevate him into all-conference territory.

All signs point to Lordi profiling as a left-handed starter capable of anchoring an LIU rotation that is chasing its third conference title in the last five years.

Written By: Thomas Santana

For years, the gap between college and pro ball wasn’t just raw talent, it was infrastructure. The big-league world had Hawkeye, biomechanics labs, force plates, pitch-design cameras, hitter evaluation systems, and internally built models that turned information into decisions. College baseball had the eye test, occasional Trackman access, and one analytics intern with a spreadsheet.

That world is gone. 2026 is the year data becomes highly accessible across Power 4, mid-majors, and even some DII, JUCO, and NAIA programs. As the tools spread, so does the buy-in from players and coaches. The result is a development landscape that is starting to mirror what MLB went through during its own analytical revolution.

The modern transfer portal landscape makes this shift even more impactful. Data gives coaching staffs the ability to recruit with precision by targeting exactly what their roster lacks. Whether it’s a power bat, a high-velo arm, a command-first starter, or a contact-heavy table setter, data can be the deciding factor in recruiting decisions. With full-season ball-flight data, swing-decision profiles, and movement plots now widely available, coaches can identify true skill instead of relying on reputation or conference prestige. In a landscape where roster turnover is constant, data is the most powerful roster-building weapon a college program has.

Here are the five trends that will define the evolution of college baseball in 2026.

1. If You’re Not Implementing Tech, You’re Already Behind

What used to be elite tech is now standard issue.

Products such as AWRE systems on fields, Portable TrackMan units, HitTrax, and Edgertronic cameras, are frequently used pieces of tech across every conference in DI baseball. Tools that once required a blueblood budget are now in the majority of mid-major dugouts. Programs that know how to leverage this tech win consistently in College Baseball.

Since 2023, College baseball has seen a meteoric rise in TrackMan adoption, going from 169 programs in 2023 to 245 in 2025. The rise in TrackMan adoption shows how data tools once reserved for national powerhouses are now baseline equipment across Division I baseball. Even across D2, JUCO, and NAIA, Trackman adoption has gone from 0 programs in 2024 to 35 programs in 2025. Mid-majors are operating with the same ball-flight visibility MLB clubs relied on 3 years ago. As tech becomes standard, the competitive edge shifts away from acquisition and toward application.

The shift towards a more data-driven approach doesn’t just come from access, it also comes from coaching culture. Pitch design is taking over. Strength staffs are running hypertrophy blocks with bar speed trackers. Hitters are getting post-game feedback that rivals minor-league systems. This mirrors the MLB’s wholesale adaptation of data driven training in the early 2020s. Technology was suddenly accessible enough and respected enough that the real separator became not who had the tech, but who knew how to apply it.

If a program isn’t implementing data in 2026, they are behind.

2. The Hitting Data Revolution Has Started

When it comes to data implementation in college baseball, hitting remains the most undervalued and under explored segment of baseball data.

Pitching was the first frontier of the analytics boom, but hitting is beginning to catch up at increasing speed. Tools like Blast Motion Sensors, HitTrax, Swing Decision Scoring Models, and biomechanics data give hitters clarity that didn’t exist in college baseball five years ago.

But the biggest change is how hitters prepare.

Hitters who understand a pitcher’s movement plot, approach angle, and usage patterns before an at-bat are more prepared to make better decisions. They know which shapes are outlier and which are not. They know if pitches tunnel and how the ball is going to enter the zone. And most importantly, they have a better idea of when they should and shouldn’t swing.

With the approach in mind, college hitters are finally learning to scout pitchers the way pro hitters do. Hitters are not just studying the box score, they’re studying ball flight and pitcher tendencies. And the smartest coaches are the best at making that information digestible.

When a game ends, approach metrics can tell hitters what they did well or poorly. Hitters no longer have to guess about ball or strike calls, they know instantly when they chase and what their weaknesses are. This postgame self-assessment is crucial for a hitter to objectively measure their approach and performance. A hitter who uses data to process like that improves faster.

3. Pitchers Are More Optimized Than Ever

In 2026, 92 is the new 90. Mid-majors now have a handful of 90+ arms instead of just one or two. College freshmen are showing up with better shapes, better patterns, and better physical profiles.

The big league blueprint has finally started to trickle down.

College programs are investing in pitching development all year round. From fall velocity programs, to athlete specific plyo drills, and even position-specific lifting programs, each pitcher has a detailed plan to get the most out of their off-season. For higher velocity guys, command training has become measurable with intended zone tracking and Command+ modeling.

In 2026, the edge on the coaching side will be in the ability to avoid pitch decay or sequencing predictability with the kind of clarity once limited to pro systems. College pitching is roughly where MLB arm development was around 2019–2022.

The floor has risen dramatically. However, the ceiling only goes to the teams who can adapt. Pitcher Optimization shows its true colors in year to year pitch trends.

Here are Paradigm’s predictions for pitch usage in 2026:

• Multi-fastball arsenals will explode — Even a mediocre secondary fastball creates perceptual contrast that can neutralize elite hitters.
• Cutters and hard gyro sliders are becoming staples — Easier to command and far more platoon-neutral.
• Changeup usage will continue to rise — especially kick changes, which create a north-south profile that plays to both RHH and LHH.
• Curveballs usage will rise — extremely effective as strike-stealers and north-south differentiators.
• Opposite-hand hitter sinkers and sweeper usage will continue to plummet — Hitters are used to seeing sweepers in 2026 and too trained to punish predictable arm-side sinkers.

Pitching isn’t just about having the best shapes anymore; the plan behind them is the real competitve edge. Paradigm gives pitchers the answer to that plan with customizable, arsenal-specific data reports that break down movement profiles, platoon neutrality, and matchup-based usage recommendations tailored to each athlete.

4. Scouting & Gameplanning Are Entering Their MLB Era

Everyone has access to data now. But only a handful know how to translate it into advantage on the scouting side.

Staff meetings that used to burn 90 minutes of video and vague tendencies are being replaced by focused, data-driven scouting systems that break opponents into three or four actionable insights. Exactly the way MLB teams prepare hitters and pitchers. Scouting is meant to be concise and to the point, not to drown players in information they won’t use.

An elite scouting report on a pitcher in 2026 will highlight:

• Which pitch shapes actually matter
• Which pitch types create chase or whiff
• Release Characteristics (release height, side, arm angle, VAA, etc.)
• Recent trends in a pitcher’s last 3 outings (usage, command, velo, shape, etc.)

Elite scouting requires a clear and concise narrative that translates information to players effectively. Scouting puts pressure on coaches to gather an immense amount of information and communicate it in a way that will resonate with 20 different athletes. Paradigm scouting reports use the right data to take the pressure off coaches by providing the insight needed to best prepare for a weekend series. No fluff, just information that prepares players and impacts winning.

This is where the gap between having data and knowing how to use it widens dramatically. The programs that can consolidate dozens of data points into a clean, 30-minute meeting are the programs that win. College baseball is finally learning how to think like pro scouting departments. And for the first time ever, the tools support it.

The last part of scouting that we believe will take a jump in 2026 is pitch tipping. Accessibility to pitcher video has given coaching staffs and student managers the ability to analyze more than just the pitch that is being thrown. After pitch tipping exploded across MLB in 2025, with teams like the Yankees relaying tips almost nightly, college baseball is on track to follow the exact same trend.

Glove height, tempo changes, grip presets, posture shifts and other micro-patterns are now detectable on video. With hitters being able to wear PitchCom receivers in their helmets, any tipping cue can be relayed instantly, turning a small mechanical leak into a massive competitive disadvantage. Teams that actively hunt for tipping will steal outs, innings, and entire weekends. Teams that ignore it will get exposed.

5. Arm-Health Monitoring Is the Next Frontier

It is no secret that fastball velocity is rising, workload is rising, and injuries are rising with them.

This is where the college world is now mirroring MLB again. Teams are starting to prioritize arm-stress data.

The basic ACWR (acute:chronic workload ratio) model explains why. A pitcher with low of a workload is equally as injury-prone as a pitcher with too high of a workload. The sweet spot is measurable rather than an arbitrary guess.

Here is the rule of thumb:

• 0.8–1.3 = Green zone. You’re training at a pace your body can handle.
• <0.8 = Undertrained. You’re not doing enough to stay ready.
• >1.3 = Red flag. You’re pushing harder than your body is prepared for.

If you jump from long toss twice a week to throwing live in front of scouts, that 1.3 turns into a 1.6 real fast, and your risk for injury rapidly increases.

Understanding ACWR is the starting point for college programs who’ve traditionally managed throwing with “how do you feel?” conversations. But what comes next?

PitchSafe app

PitchSafe is another arm health tracking app where players manage their Readiness and Consistency, earn rewards, and dominate their 7 most important routines to meet and surpass their goals. With PitchSafe, your Overall Rating becomes your personal performance tracker, constantly evolving as you train, compete, and recover.

For the first time, college teams are identifying fatigue days before soreness. They can predict workload spikes before inflammation. They can adjust throwing days with real data, not just feel.

The teams implementing arm-health monitoring in 2026 will have healthier staffs, more stable velocity throughout the year, and fewer lost-weekend starters due to predictable stress patterns.

This will be the next frontier of competitive advantage, and the programs ignoring it are about to pay the price.

ArmCare

ArmCare dynamometers are used to layer in strength deltas like internal/external rotation, scaption, grip, and fatigue values before and after throwing to monitor stress through an “ArmCare Score”.

Driveline Pulse

Wearable tech like Pulse sensors deepen ACWR visibility by quantifying elbow torque, arm speed, slot, and rotation, giving staffs a real read on stress, not just volume.

The Bottom Line: Data Is No Longer a Luxury

2026 is about which programs know what to do with their data.

MLB’s data revolution reshaped the sport. College baseball’s version is just beginning, but the acceleration curve is much steeper than most realize. sion is just beginning, but the acceleration curve is steep. Much steeper than anyone realizes. Teams that embrace tech, train smarter hitters, optimize pitchers, scouting aggressively, and prioritize arm-health metrics will separate fast. The teams that don’t will watch their competitive window shrink before they understand why.

The landscape is changing. For the first time, data isn’t an MLB luxury, it’s a college baseball requirement.

Paradigm works with schools across all levels and budgets to bring MLB caliber clarity to college baseball. We provide schools with hitting, pitching, and scouting reports along with comments from our expert analysts. Our analysts turn an excess of information into a clear, competitive plan that gives players and coaches the answers they’ve been missing in player development. We work alongside your coaching staff to make the data application process more streamlined than ever.

Written By: Thomas Santana

Stuff has become the currency of modern pitching. Everyone uses the word stuff, but nobody explains what it actually means. Does “good stuff” simply mean you throw hard? Does it mean your slider sweeps a lot? Does it refer to strikeouts? Whiffs? Command? All of the above?

The modern answer is a metric called Stuff+, a model designed to measure the quality of a pitch’s ball flight and release characteristics to predict how well that pitch will perform in a game environment.

But in college baseball, Stuff+ is not destiny.

Unlike pro ball, where every bullpen rolls out upper 90s fastballs and nasty breaking balls, elite Stuff+ is not evenly distributed in Division I baseball. Most teams don’t have ten flamethrowers. Many don’t even have three. Yet year after year, pitchers with “average” or “below-average” Stuff+ outperform expectations in ways a model can’t predict.

College baseball lives in the middle ground where pitchability, deception, release, command, and sequencing still matter as much as raw stuff. Put a smart coaching staff behind a pitcher with just enough tools, and the performance ceiling changes instantly.

Why “Below-Average” Stuff is common, and why you’re not doomed

Below-average Stuff+ is far more common than pitchers think, and it usually comes down to a few predictable issues rather than a lack of talent. Most college arms sit in the 85–90 mph band, which automatically suppresses Stuff+ since the model heavily rewards velocity.

On top of that, many pitchers throw “stock” shapes that match exactly what hitters expect off a typical 5.7–5.9 ft release height. Hitters make decisions based on what they see. A standard release, stock build, and average extension create comfort in a hitter’s brain.

Dead fastballs, runny changeups, and slow gyro sliders are pitch shapes that college arms should avoid. None of these profiles create deception or force hitters into uncomfortable decisions. However, below-average Stuff+ does not doom a pitcher to below-average performance.

In fact, there are four ways pitchers can consistently outperform their Stuff+.

1. Outlier Release Characteristics: The #1 Shortcut to Beating Hitters at 85–89 mph

You can’t always control your velocity, but you can absolutely control your visual.

Release characteristics such as release height, release side, extension, and delivery timing drastically change how a hitter perceives the ball. Stuff+ can capture some of these effects, but college hitters feel 100% of them.

Take a look at some 86–89 mph fastballs across different release angles and heights:

Despite the same velo band, they yield completely different outcomes.

The lesson is: If you can’t be overpowering, be uncomfortable.

Pitchers who win with release traits often:

• Use low/high slots
• Have elite extension
• Show the ball late
• Have crossfire mechanics
• Have odd sequencing or timing

These pitchers hack hitter visuals. They don’t need 95 because they look nothing like 89 from a 5.9’ release height.

Pitch Shape

A pitcher’s pitch shape is tied to his release characteristics. In our view, an outlier pitch shape means your pitch does something unexpected given your release height or arm angle. This goes hand-in-hand with outlier release characteristics. A seemingly average pitch shape can be an outlier depending on the release height. For example a fastball with 15” of IVB and 15” of HB may be seen as “dead zone” at first glance. But if that shape is thrown from a 4.5 foot release height, it’s an outlier because hitters don’t often see that much carry from a low release.

Outlier shapes could be:

• A low-slot fastball that rides more than expected
• A high slot fastball that sinks more than expected
• A kick-changeup with extreme depth
• A SSW slider with outlier sweep and carry

These pitches don’t exist in large quantities, which makes them extremely effective. For example, a fastball from a 5.8 ft release doesn’t produce above-average outcomes until it reaches 93 mph (.352 WOBA, .415 SLG).

But a fastball with outlier shape and release can generate similar results at 86–89.

2. Be Left-Handed (With Offspeed Threats)

This one is simple. Being left-handed automatically upgrades mediocre stuff.

Here’s two velo bands with different handedness:

Just like outlier shapes, lefties can get away with more because hitters see far fewer of them.

But the real cheat code is left-handed offspeed.

Lefty Offspeed

• LHP changeup: .330 WOBA, 22% in-zone whiff, .430 SLG
• 80 mph or below: .325 WOBA, 25% IZ whiff
• LHP slider: .315 WOBA, .385 SLG, 16% barrel
• 82 mph or below: .322 WOBA

Lefties with command of a changeup or slider frequently outperform their Stuff+ all across D1 baseball.

If you’re a lefty with below-average Stuff+, your path is clear: lean into your offspeed, use hitters’ unfamiliarity against them, and attack both sides of the plate.

3. Elite Command: The Great Equalizer

When you don’t have premium velocity or elite shapes, your margin for error tightens. Elite command becomes the great equalizer — the ability to deliver high-quality strikes, avoid the heart of the plate, and force hitters into uncomfortable, defensive contact. The data tells the story clearly.

Fastballs at 86–89 mph located on the corners generated a .325 WOBA, .445 slug, and a 13% barrel rate in 2025 — performance that mirrors many supposedly “elite” fastballs. But pitchers in this band don’t get the safety net of missing middle; they live on razor-thin margins. The same is true for breaking balls. When they’re thrown on the black, they produced just a .186 WOBA, .293 slug, and 8% barrels. Precision has always been the one trait that instantly narrows the Stuff+ gap.

How Command-First Arms Actually Win: A Case Study

Garret Yawn: 81 Stuff+

Garret Yawn is the ideal example of how sequencing and deception can elevate a pitcher with average stuff into a complete, college-level weapon. A right-hander with one of the funkiest visuals in the country, Yawn attacks hitters from a 6.7-foot release height with above-average extension (6.65 ft). This helps him create a steep north-south profile that makes his 85.3 mph average fastball play well above its velocity. His delivery is a true outlier and extremely difficult for hitters to time up.

Working off of a funky cut-ride fastball shape, Yawn doesn’t need a single pitch over 90 mph to generate elite results. In 2025, he had 23+ strikeouts on all 3 pitch types, solidifying his versatility as a strike thrower. Across 105 innings, he struck out 113 hitters, walked just 2.82 per 9, and held opponents to 101 hits on the season. His success highlights that command, deception, and sequencing can absolutely dominate when the arsenal is used intelligently. Yawn forces hitters to choose between flat fastballs at the top and breaking steep balls that fall off the table. Most college hitters can’t solve that puzzle consistently.

Kenton Deverman: 101 Stuff+

Kenton Deverman is a great example of a pitcher who wins by knowing exactly who he is. A funky-delivery lefty who hides the ball exceptionally well, Deverman creates a tough visual that makes him surprisingly platoon-neutral. Even more importantly, he refuses to give hitters free bases. Over 67 innings, he walked only eight hitters, good for a ridiculous 1.07 BB/9, while opening nearly 68% of all plate appearances with a strike. With fastballs specifically, that first-pitch strike rate jumped to 73%, a massive advantage for any command-first arm.

His fastball averaged 89.5 mph, but he leaned on it heavily, using it 75%+ of the time to both lefties and righties, pairing it with a slider that he could land in any count. The occasional changeup added just enough unpredictability to keep hitters honest, but the backbone of his success was simple: he filled up the zone, sequenced aggressively, and trusted his ability to live on edges. His 3.74 FIP shows a far more complete picture than his inflated 5.70 ERA, which owed far more to batted-ball variance than to poor pitching. When you force hitters to swing early and often at uncomfortable visuals, you don’t need eye-popping Stuff+ to go deep into games. Deverman proved it with six outings of 7+ innings in 2025.

Why This Matters

Command doesn’t light up social media the way 95+ does, but it sure wins baseball games. What Deverman and Yawn show is that pitchers can outperform the Stuff+ of their fastball through discipline, intent, sequencing, and the refusal to give in over the plate.

At the college level where arsenals vary wildly, you don’t need the best stuff. You need the best plan, executed with precision.

4. Arsenal Diversity & Sequencing

Not every pitcher is built to dominate with pure stuff. Many succeed because they understand how to manipulate swings, disrupt timing, and neutralize platoon advantages through thoughtful pitch design and smart sequencing. At its core, unpredictability is a skill, and the best coaches weaponize it. Hitters-count breaking balls, two-strike fastballs, and 3–2 offspeed pitches all serve one purpose: keep the hitter guessing.

To consistently beat both righties and lefties, a pitcher benefits from having a funky release visual, a defined north–south movement profile, a usable changeup or splitter, ideally a second fastball shape, a firmer breaking ball, and the ability to steal called strikes. None of these traits require elite Stuff+. They simply require intent and discipline.

And the numbers back it up:
Splitters: .300 wOBA, 23% in-zone whiff, .376 SLG
Changeups: .331 xWOBA, 21.1% in-zone whiff, .423 SLG

When a pitcher can move a hitter’s eyes in multiple directions and vary speeds with purpose, average velocity suddenly becomes secondary. Sequencing becomes the bridge between “what you have” and “why it works.”

Sequencing Over Stuff+: Jake Francis

Jake Francis wins in a very different way. His fastball averaged just 87.2 mph, and unlike many deception-based command guys, his visual isn’t funky at all. His release sits around 5.7 feet, giving hitters a fairly traditional look. Instead of leaning heavily on one or two pitches, he attacks hitters with four distinct shapes: a four-seam, changeup, sweeper, and cutter. Francis proved in 2025 that he can throw all of them for strikes at any moment. That reliability across his arsenal is what makes him the ultimate sequencer. He throws all three offspeed pitches at a 15%+ clip, forcing hitters to account for multiple velo bands and movement profiles on every pitch.

But he doesn’t overpower hitters, and he doesn’t try to. In fact, he possessed one of the worst Stuff+ fastballs in all of Division I baseball in 2024, yet still managed to outperform it by a significant margin. He did this by understanding that weak contact is just as valuable as whiffs.

Across 61 innings this year, Francis struck out 34 hitters. Those numbers are not flashy, but they are more than enough when paired with his ability to limit mistakes. His walk rate sat at 2.2 BB/9, reflecting a consistent willingness to trust his command and pitch to soft contact. Because every pitch looks different and arrives from a slightly different lane or timing window, hitters rarely get comfortable on either side of the plate. They can’t gear up for the sweeper without worrying about the firmer cutter or the depthy change. Francis’ entire model is built on layering visuals, disrupting timing, and giving hitters four problems to solve instead of one.

Why Sequencing Wins

A well-built sequence forces hitters into indecision. It turns 88 into 92, makes average breaking balls play sharper, and helps pitchers neutralize platoon splits without needing a 70-grade pitch.

You don’t always need the best stuff — you need the best approach. That’s where alignment between pitcher and coach becomes essential. When both sides operate with the same data-driven language, sequencing becomes intentional rather than reactive. Paradigm helps bridge that gap by turning raw information into clear, measurable game plans that pitchers can actually execute on the mound.

Final Thoughts

Stuff+ is a powerful metric. It matters. But it will never tell the full story of a pitcher’s performance. College baseball lives in the chaotic overlap between undeveloped hitters, wide velocity bands, inconsistent arsenals, odd deliveries, and imperfect sequencing. In that chaos, pitchers are able to routinely outperform their Stuff+.

If you sit 85–89 mph, your career is not defined by your Stuff+.
It is defined by your willingness to commit one or more of four ways to outperform your stuff :

1. Outlier release/shape
2. Deception
3. Elite command
4. Arsenal diversity and sequencing

Pitchers without elite stuff can put together elite results in 2026. That’s how you beat the model. That’s how you build a career in college baseball.

Paradigm reports cut through the noise, translating complex metrics into simple adjustments. Our analysts turn an excess of information into a clear, competitive plan that gives pitchers and coaches the answers they’ve been missing in player development.

Written by Thomas Santana

The talent distribution, the metal bats, the inconsistency in command, and everything about the essence of the college game changes how we interpret data and make pitching decisions.

At the professional level, “stuff” usually dominates. A 98 mph fastball with carry and intent can quickly neutralize a platoon advantage. But in college baseball, the landscape looks different. Average fastballs live between 88 and 91. Shapes are inconsistent, arsenals are underdeveloped, and fatigue drops velo two ticks by the fifth. But that doesn’t mean matchup management and stuff quality are separate ideas. In college baseball, they’re inseparable. The two exist on a spectrum, constantly influencing how leverage is created and where advantages live.

Understanding Matchups 101

We can start by defining the four fundamental matchups and how they perform on average:

These numbers tell a simple story: Same-handed matchups suppress damage; opposite-handed matchups create it. But the context behind those numbers is where the insight lives.

LHP vs LHH

This is the best matchup in baseball. It’s the only one that truly tilts leverage to the pitcher’s favor, showing the lowest xWOBA (.294), lowest slug (.401), and lowest barrel rate (15%). The L/L visual is inherently difficult to hit and it creates an uncomfortable angle that limits vision and reaction. Same-handed breaking balls are especially tough, as the spin direction and sweep work directly against a lefty’s line of sight, making it extremely difficult to barrel. Not to mention, the lack of familiarity due to a smaller sample size of LHP in college baseball.

RHP vs RHH

The most common matchup in the game. It’s almost as effective as L/L, but with more slug potential (.432). Hitters see this visual more often, so the advantage is smaller, though the run suppression remains relatively solid (.299 xWOBA).

LHP vs RHH

The second-highest xWOBA (.305), but it carries the best swing-and-miss upside of any “unfavorable” matchup. High-stuff lefties with carry or unique approach angles can actually succeed here. For those with a plus left-handed changeup, that’s the cheat code to this matchup. The arm-side fade and velocity separation completely disrupt right-handed hitters’ timing, making a traditionally disadvantageous split much more favorable. It’s a window where plus stuff can neutralize the matchup disadvantage.

RHP vs LHH

The statistically least favorable matchup. The most familiar visual in baseball, every left-handed hitter sees hundreds of RHP looks per year. It produces the highest xWOBA (.314) and barrel rate (18.2%). Only elite stuff can bridge the gap to achieve complete platoon neutrality. For coaches, that means leaning into splitter and breaking ball usage, throwing more pitches that kill platoon splits by moving off the barrel and attacking different planes.

When Matchups Actually Matter

So when do matchups actually matter? The data and theory converge on a simple truth:

Matchups matter most when stuff quality is average or below average.

When pitchers live in that 85 — 90 mph range, with average shapes, limited deception, and minimal swing-and-miss traits, they simply can’t overpower hitters. Their path to success runs through visual disruption and platoon leverage.

At this level of stuff, the spread between matchups is widest, meaning a poor handedness decision has real consequences. A .294 xWOBA (L/L) versus a .314 (R/L) can be the difference between a shutdown inning and a crooked number.

College bullpens are filled with these pitchers — righties with average ride, lefties with sink, arms that compete by sequence rather than stuff. That’s where matchup awareness becomes a separator. You can’t change your pitcher’s raw stuff mid-game, but you can put them in a situation where they’re more likely to have success.

When Stuff Starts to Take Over

Once a pitcher’s stuff quality rises: higher fastball velocity, distinct shapes, or deceptive release characteristics, the importance of matchups begins to fade.

For example, the dreaded R/L matchup looks entirely different when stuff is taken into account. In 2025, left-handed hitters posted a .308 xWOBA against 92+ mph right-handed fastballs, but that number jumped to .357 on fastballs in the 85 — 90 mph range.

We have found that when a fastball in our model has a 110 Stuff+ or greater, the traditional platoon advantage starts to break down. A pitcher’s fastball is typically the anchor of an arsenal, with the effectiveness of their secondary pitches depending on how well the fastball sets them up. At this threshold, the quality of the pitch outweighs the visual and the handedness that matchups provide. It’s worth noting here that there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. Velocity is the most 1:1 improvement of fastball stuff+, but quick adjustments to seam orientation, efficiency, etc. can yield great results with outlier movement.

That’s the crucial inflection point, where a RHP with a 92+ mph heater can consistently outperform a low-stuff LHP versus left handed hitters.

High-velo arms, elite shapes, and deception-based profiles “break” the matchup rules. The R/L matchup becomes less punishing. The L/R gap tightens. A 95 mph lefty with carry can generate the same expected outcomes against righties as a soft-tossing righty does, simply by having the stuff advantage.

In short: With higher Stuff+, handedness stops being the dominant variable.

Why This Relationship Is Unique in College Baseball

This dynamic is especially important in the college game because of how the environment amplifies both extremes.

1. Stuff degradation happens fast — Starters who sit 93 in the first might be 88 in the fifth. That drop moves them from the “stuff-dominant” tier back into the “matchup-sensitive” tier. Managing matchups mid-game becomes a live adjustment, not just a pregame plan.
2. Metal bats widen contact quality gaps — A small difference in barrel rate or xWOBA matters more when contact jumps off the bat faster. That means poor matchups have the potential to hurt more.
3. Pitcher development is uneven — College programs have a wide variance in Stuff. Some lineups see 95+ regularly; others rarely do. This amplifies how much the visual matters. For example, a lefty who never faces LHPs will be far more matchup-sensitive.
4. Command and confidence (“Dog+”) fluctuate more — Sometimes lacking elite command, pitch execution, or mental toughness, college pitchers are relying on leverage, and handedness is one of the few controllable leverage points a coach has. On the flip side, a low stuff pitcher with elite command, execution, and strong mental game can get the job done.

All of this means that in college baseball, the relationship between stuff and matchups is constantly shifting.

Every inning, every bullpen choice, every velo dip changes the calculus.

The Stuff — Matchup Continuum

The lesson: you can’t treat matchups and stuff as separate variables.

They exist on the same axis. As stuff goes up, matchup leverage goes down. As stuff goes down, matchup leverage becomes much more important.

Decision-Making Through the Stuff — Matchup Continuum

Using Stuff+ and matchup data together reframes how we think about in-game moves:

In essence:

• Matchups drive strategy for average arms.
• Stuff drives strategy for elite arms.
• Game context determines when you pivot between the two.

Applying the Model

At Paradigm, we’re building tools to quantify this exact relationship. Paradigm’s pitching and scouting reports provide the context for this type of decision-making. By mapping how a pitcher’s stuff changes inning to inning, count to count, we can pinpoint when matchups start to matter again. Our analysts work in tandem with your coaching staff to not only crunch the data, but also scout your opposition to make an informed decision come game time. Tools like Paradigm+ heatmaps allow us to practice throwing pitches in areas that have the highest predictive success and allow coaches with less roster flexibility to improve matchup quality through pitch calling.

A coach who understands this relationship between data and performance doesn’t just play the platoon card, they play the timing card. They know when the righty at 92 isn’t the same as the righty at 88, and when a tired fastball turns a neutral matchup into a damage zone.

Takeaways

The truth about college baseball is that matchups and stuff are codependent variables. Every inning is a recalibration of which one matters more. When stuff fades, matchups take over. When stuff climbs, handedness starts to lose its grip on the outcome.

At the professional level, velocity and shape can erase traditional splits. But in college baseball, where most fastballs sit below 92 mph and fatigue is constant, the separation between advantage and damage is razor-thin. That’s why the best programs don’t just recruit stuff, they manage leverage. They know that a mediocre fastball with the wrong visual is a liability, and that a lefty-on-lefty look can be worth more than two ticks of velocity.

The next edge isn’t simply throwing harder. It’s knowing when your stuff is good enough to override a matchup and when it isn’t. That’s where Paradigm’s tools make the difference. Paradigm reports quantify this intersection by tracking how a pitcher’s stuff evolves in-game, identifying where matchup leverage reappears, and revealing which pitch profiles can overcome certain visuals. In short, our reports turn theoretical leverage into actionable decisions.

Written By: Thomas Santana

That’s where Command+ comes in, the perfect complement to Stuff+, and the other half of what actually drives on-field success.

What Is Command+?

Simply put, Command+ is Stuff+ for execution. It’s a standardized value (100 is league average) that grades a pitcher’s relative command, not just intent.

Each pitch is graded based on how it performs relative to pitches with similar pitch shape, thrown in a similar location. Using our dynamic expected run value zones (xRV), Command+ adapts to the unique characteristics of every pitch. That means it’s not just bucketed by pitch type (which would be far too broad); it’s responsive to shape, speed, and release point.

A high Command+ score reflects pitches executed in zones that consistently generate the lowest xRV outcomes — in other words, locations where that specific pitch shape performs best.

Why Command+ Matters

Pitchers usually don’t fail because they lack stuff. They fail because they can’t consistently execute the stuff they have. Command+ bridges that gap.

For players, it provides a real-time mirror between feel and fact. When a pitcher says, “My fastball command felt off today,” that subjective sense now has a measurable counterpart. A 20-point drop in Command+ from outing to outing validates that feeling and pinpoints where execution slipped.

For coaches, it’s a decision-making tool. Over the course of a season, Command+ can highlight:

• Which pitch types a player commands best
• How command correlates with stuff quality
• Where adjustments can be made to balance intent with execution

It’s also a powerful bullpen training metric. The goal isn’t just to maximize stuff; it’s to find the sweet spot where Stuff+ and Command+ are both high, where elite pitch shapes meet elite execution. At the end of the day, high Stuff+ with poor command doesn’t win games, it just looks good on paper.

Why Command is Underserved and Why That’s Changing

Command and execution data have long been the most underserved areas in player development. The tools to measure and quantify them simply haven’t existed at scale, until now.

Parlaying our Command+ score with our Paradigm+ heat maps, we can finally close the loop between pitch design and performance outcome. These tools turn subjective feedback into actionable insight, helping players understand why certain pitches succeed or fail, not just how they move.

The Full Picture of Pitching Performance

Stuff+ tells you what a pitch is capable of.

Command+ tells you how well it’s being used.

Together, they provide the most complete picture of a pitcher’s true performance ceiling. Because in baseball, dominating hitters isn’t about having elite stuff or elite command, it’s about having both.

Paradigm provides cost-effective and customizable data reports that are applied directly to your program via scouting, self-scouting, and internal player development plans. If you are interested in insights like this for your program, DM us on X for a free consultation @paradigmpds, or email kylewellman@paradigmpds.com

Written By: Thomas Santana

What is Paradigm+?

At its core, Paradigm+ overlays stuff+ and zone locations with the lowest expected run value. Instead of being static, Paradigm+ is a fluid heatmap, changing based on pitch shape, velocity, release characteristics, and other traits unique to each pitch. Think of it as a map that tells you precisely how effective your pitch will be depending on where it’s thrown, all relative to the actual movement qualities of a pitch.

The larger and darker blue the area is, the more room for error a pitcher has and the more effective the pitch will be. In the white/red areas, there is less margin for error, and hitters are more likely to do damage. The “room for error” of a given pitch is what Stuff+ measures, but now we are making Stuff+ location-dependent with our Paradigm+ heat maps. This allows pitchers to train both stuff and command simultaneously, bridging the gap that has traditionally separated the two.

Paradigm+ in action

Take a look at the two heat maps above. The first heatmap is the pitcher’s two-seam fastball vs left-handed and right-handed hitters, and the second is the pitcher’s changeup. The difference in Attack Zones is striking.

• Two-Seam: Against both LHH and RHH, the blue regions are relatively narrow and located more around the edges of the strike zone. This tells us the two-seam only plays at peak effectiveness when it’s thrown with precision. Miss off that narrow band, and the pitch quickly turns red, with low margin for error.
• Changeup: By contrast, the changeup heat maps light up the zone with broad, deep blue pockets. Against both LHH and RHH, the pitch has more margin for error and a much wider target area where it consistently drives down run value. This suggests the changeup not only plays as a more forgiving pitch but also may deserve higher usage in game plans.

This is the kind of comparison Paradigm+ makes possible. Instead of guessing which pitch is most effective, pitchers can now see which pitch gives them the biggest blue zone to work with. That insight helps guide usage rates, sequencing, and even development priorities.

In this case, Paradigm+ would suggest the pitcher’s changeup is a more reliable weapon than the two-seam, both in terms of effectiveness and margin for error. The two-seam may still have value in certain spots, but the changeup is the pitch that should carry a higher share of the arsenal.

Paradigm+ Guides Usage Rates

Now that pitchers can see exactly where their pitch should be thrown to maximize its effectiveness, they can also compare pitches in their arsenal to see which pitches have the largest blue zones. Not all pitches are created equal — some may have larger Attack Zones than others, giving pitchers more margin for error and a higher likelihood of success.

This comparison opens the door to smarter pitch usage. Take the example from above, the slider shows a narrow blue band while the changeup lights up the zone with dark blue. That is a clear signal about which pitch deserves more trust in certain situations. Over time, these insights can help guide usage rates. Instead of just relying on intuition, Paradigm+ provides data-backed evidence to decide which pitch should become a go-to weapon and which one may need refinement or limited usage.

How to Practice With Paradigm+

Now that pitchers can gauge the Attack Zones of their pitches, command practice becomes much more targeted. Instead of treating command as just “throw it over the plate” or “hit the corners”, pitchers can now train with an understanding of where their pitches actually play best.

Take the two-seam vs. changeup example. If a pitcher knows their two-seam only works when it’s spotted in a very narrow blue band, then command training for that pitch should emphasize precision: hitting that exact lane repeatedly until it becomes second nature. On the flip side, if the changeup comes with a larger, more forgiving Attack Zone, command practice can be more about consistency and repetition within that broader target area.

This type of conviction is how bullpens and pitch design sessions look with Paradigm+. Instead of throwing 20 “random” two-seams and hoping command improves, pitchers can throw 20 pitches with conviction at the pitch’s Attack Zone. It’s almost like getting the answer key before taking the test. Instead of treating command as a blanket skill, it becomes pitch-specific, adaptive, and measurable.

Paradigm provides cost-effective and customizable data reports that are applied directly to your program via scouting, self-scouting, and internal player development plans. If you are interested in insights like this for your program, DM us on X for a free consultation @paradigmpds, or email kylewellman@paradigmpds.com

Written By: Thomas Santana

So… What Is Tunneling?

Tunneling is when two pitches share the same initial trajectory (the same “tunnel”) before diverging late. The idea is to make different pitches look the same until it’s too late for the hitter to adjust.

It’s beautiful in theory, and proven effective when executed correctly. But here’s the only problem: One of the key realities at the college level — and really at most levels outside of elite MLB arms — is that true pitch tunneling is limited by velocity and movement profiles. Most pitchers simply don’t throw hard enough for bigger breaking balls to effectively tunnel with high-carry fastballs.

In practical terms, tunneling tends to exist between specific pitch pairings: fastballs and gyro sliders, sinkers and sweepers, fastballs and changeups, or sinkers and cutters. Once you exceed a movement difference of about 20 inches or a velocity gap of 10 mph, it becomes nearly impossible to keep pitches in the same tunnel while still locating in or near the strike zone. For most pitchers, then, tunneling isn’t about pairing your nastiest shapes — it’s about realistic combinations that actually match in velocity, release, and early ball flight.

It’s one thing to throw a fastball and a slider from the same arm slot. It’s another to locate them on the same visual plane, with matching vertical/horizontal release angles and flight path for the first 15 feet. That’s the tunneling window. Miss it, and you might throw a cement-mixer slider after a belt-high heater.

One of the easiest ways to contextualize tunneling is through the concept of Spin Mirroring; spin mirroring means having two pitches whose spin direction are exact opposites of each other. Think about a direct backspin fastball and a true 12–6 curveball, or a side spin sinker and a sweeping slider. Conceptually, basing spin-mirroring off of your fastball is the quickest way to determine your pitch tunnels. Although the discussion is certainly more nuanced than that, starting here is a great way to create a baseline.

How Do We Practice Tunneling?

Now that we have clarified that tunneling is an acquired skill and sequencing is a strategy, we can work backwards from there. In the case of tunneling, how do we become better at a skill that combines execution and stuff? We practice it with intent in the bullpen. If a pitcher’s goal is to maximize their arsenal effects through tunneling, then they should first identify the pitch groups that tunnel (ex: sinker/slider, 4seam/curveball, etc.) and dedicate time to maximizing the stuff of each pitch individually. Although it could be scary for a pitching coach, a pitcher prioritizing stuff may want to ditch command for a side session or two. It’s not that a pitcher should be blindly ripping pitches with no feel for the zone, but stuff gains can be made if a pitcher puts a greater focus towards physical cue or grip change without worrying about the consequences of hitting a precise location.

That being said, emphasizing a cue such as “keep your head still” while expanding his visual allows a pitcher to control the ball while keeping stuff gains as the short-term priority. Additionally, it may be valuable for a pitcher to throw the same pitch 3+ times in a row in a side session to nail down the right shape. These strategies allow pitchers to keep a feel for the zone while they are primarily focused on increasing stuff output. In short, pitch tunneling relies heavily on data and spin concepts, but with the intent of opening doors for sequencing practice later.

Once the ceiling of a pitch has increased, then we can flip the priorities and focus on execution. But first we need to understand the realistic capabilities of tunneling at the college level. There is a sizable difference in stuff and command between the college and professional level. A college pitcher can certainly throw a nasty two pitch sequence that tunnels and hits two different edges of the strike zone, but on a more consistent basis, a college pitcher can use their misses to create a tunneling effect and increase swing indecision. This is the first step towards equipping tunneling as a skill before even pitching in a game.

In execution focused bullpen sessions, coaches can track in-zone% while a pitcher can prioritize focal points and/or mechanical feelings to command their improved pitches. Additionally, they could make the session more game-like by adding a stand-in hitter and forcing the pitcher to never throw the same pitch twice in a row. This is when we can practice using our misses. Think about a guy who throws a heavy sinker and a sweeping slider. If he misses armside with the sinker, he can follow with a middle/armside freeze slider on the same horizontal plane. It’s not perfect execution, but the complimentary movement of the two pitches creates a tough swing decision for a hitter.

Sequencing Is Game Strategy

Sequencing, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on in-game context. It’s the art of deciding what to throw next, and why. It does not always rely on pitches that tunnel. Sometimes it’s about disrupting timing, sometimes it’s about changing eye level, and sometimes it’s about showing the same pitch twice to exploit a hitter’s tendencies. Advanced scouting reports provide context that helps coaches drive these decisions, and is one of the ways Paradigm aims to arm coaches with information that drives winning baseball games through player development.

How to Strategically Apply Sequencing

Every pitch sequence boils down to a binary choice:

• Throw the same pitch twice.
• Change the pitch.

Determining which choice is best depends on:

• The hitter’s profile (what can he do damage on? what can’t he do damage on?).
• The pitcher’s strengths (what do they execute most consistently? what do they get whiffs on most consistently).
• The count, score, and baserunners.

For example:

• If a hitter swings over a down-and-away changeup, you might opt to throw it again.
• If a hitter sits on a fastball early in the count, you start with a breaker and throw elevated fastballs with 2K.
• If a pitcher misses down with a curve, you might follow it with a fastball in the same low tunnel to create a freeze.

Sequencing does not require tunneling, but tunneling makes sequencing better. The best-case scenario is when a pitcher can sequence intelligently and still tunnel pitches effectively: that’s where the performance ceiling that we built in the bullpen really starts to show in game.

How to use Sequencing and Tunneling Together

The Flow Charts below provide a visual to help pitchers blend the developmental skill of tunneling with the strategic mindset of sequencing. Using each pitch outcome, executed or missed, we can create actionable feedback for pitchers. By understanding how pitches relate visually and strategically, pitchers can make smarter in-game decisions that maximize deception and minimize predictability. This is how we start to think like a complete pitcher, not just executing a good sequence, or creating a tunnel, but one who can do both, and adjust on the fly.

Tunneling and Sequencing Are A Great Team

The real magic happens for pitchers when tunneling and sequencing intersect.

This is especially true in college baseball, where execution is more volatile than at the pro level. The inconsistency in command means that sequencing often has to compensate for missed locations. But if a pitcher can use their miss to set up the next pitch, turning a mistake into a deception tool, then they’re combining strategy and player development into one cohesive approach.

Imagine your own flow chart that asks:

• What pitch did I just throw?
• Where did it end up?
• How did the hitter react? (Swing path/timing)
• What pitch tunnels from that location or visual?
• What sequence gives me the greatest margin for error?

This is how we start to think like a complete pitcher, not just one who sequences, or one who tunnels, but one who can do both, and adjust on the fly.

Tying It All Together

So what actually matters, tunneling or sequencing?

Both. But in different ways.

• Tunneling is about training your pitches to work together visually and physically. It’s a developmental skill that raises your performance ceiling by increasing deception. It requires some trial and error.
• Sequencing is about applying strategy during the game. It raises your floor by helping you navigate hitters more effectively, especially when execution isn’t perfect. It requires conviction and forethought/instinct.

At the college level, sequencing arguably carries more immediate weight because execution is inconsistent. But as stuff and command improve, tunneling becomes more important. Tunneling is ultimately the force multiplier that allows sequencing to shine.

At the end of the day, we shouldn’t separate the two. The best way to train college pitchers is to develop tunneling in practice, and to apply it through sequencing in-game. That’s how we build smarter, more deceptive, and more complete pitchers. Paradigm aims to solve this issue by providing analysts to work for your coaching staff. Through advanced bullpen and game reports, our analysts make recommendations and provide objective feedback for sequencing and pitch tunneling, both in a game and practice scenario.

Paradigm provides cost-effective and customizable data reports that are applied directly to your program via scouting, self-scouting, and internal player development plans. If you are interested in insights like this for your program, DM us on X for a free consultation @paradigmpds, or email kylewellman@paradigmpds.com

Written By: Thomas Santana

Edited by: Kyle Wellman, Will Parkinson

At Paradigm, we believe that college baseball has hit the ceiling on obsessing over EV, chase rate, and “barrels.” Coaches know what a hitter did, but not always why. What often separates a productive at-bat from an empty one usually isn’t swing mechanics, bat path, or even luck. In an effort to solve this problem, Paradigm has created one metric that tells that story better than anything else: Swing decision score.

Swing decision scores aren’t about guessing right or reacting fast. It’s about translating pitch-by-pitch choices into runs on the scoreboard. Enter Paradigm’s postgame hitter report — a data-backed blueprint that doesn’t just evaluate at-bats — It explains them.

Quantifying Your Approach

Paradigm postgame hitting reports grade swing decisions across an entire game — then maps those decisions given pitch type, pitch shape, and count. Using these peripheral metrics, we are able to contextualize swing decisions based on thousands of data points across college baseball. Old adages like “He’s seeing it well.” “He’s grinding” “He’s due,” etc. don’t hold contextual weight. Does a guy fouling off five borderline pitches and grounding out mean he had a good AB? Well if four of those pitches were out of the zone and he chased all of them, that’s not elite vision, that’s survival. Our goal is to quantify and create feedback for hitters beyond the results of a plate appearance; swing decision grading allows for a process-based approach to hitting development.

Let’s dive into what makes the Paradigm model breathe:

There are two pillars to the decision score:

• Take Quality: Based on the probability of a called strike versus a ball, multiplied by the run values for each potential outcome. The more a hitter can take a ball that’s likely to be called a ball (especially in advantage counts), the better the score.
• Swing Quality: Swing decision grading is based on the expected result of contact, factoring in whiff rate and slugging. For example, swinging at a fastball down the middle 2–0 gets a high swing decision score regardless of the game result. Even if the hitter whiffed, it is still a good decision. Chasing a breaking ball in the dirt on 2–0 gets penalized and allows tangible feedback for leaving the zone in a hitter’s count.

Importantly, the model adapts its scoring emphasis based on count context. In early or hitter-friendly counts, good swing decisions are valued more. In two-strike or pitcher’s counts, laying off tough pitches becomes more important. Instead of guessing if a hitter’s process is sound, hitters can see their decisions graded 0–10, and reflect on their approach based off data they can trust.

For example, a hitter takes a 2–0 fastball in the heart of the zone. It’s called a strike 98% of the time. Mathematically, that cost -0.207 runs. It hurt his chances of being productive in that at bat. A 3–2 take on a likely ball equates to +0.528 runs. For the first time, we’re giving hitters a number that reflects that. (We all know umpires are inconsistent, so stay tuned for how we attacked this problem and baked it into the model).

Good Hitting = Good Choices

Let’s simplify this. The best hitters in the country do two things:

1. Swing at pitches they can hit hard.

2. Don’t swing at pitches they can’t.

It sounds basic. But in a game where pitchers are throwing 92+ with elite shapes and tunneling, making those right choices is harder than ever. That’s why decision data matters. It’s not about results, it’s about process, but process that is quantified.

The Paradigm report tracks those choices across games and over time. Not only can you see your swing decisions game by game, but you can observe trends like:

• Which count do you swing through most often?
• Which quadrant do you chase in?
• What happens to your decisions when the pitcher has outlier shapes?

Recency Bias? Gone.

Ask any hitter after a game how they did, and you’ll get a summary based on their last swing. Maybe they hit a double and feel great. Maybe they struck out and think they’re broken. The reality is usually somewhere in between.

The Paradigm swing decision report removes emotion. It gives feedback rooted in count leverage, pitch probability, and run expectancy. The report provides feedback instantly with no need to wait for video sessions or spray charts. Postgame, hitters see what their decision profile looked like — where they attacked well, where they were too passive, and which zones tripped them up. Instead of relying on past data, hitters are now looking forward to developing a better approach.

One of the best parts of swing decision scoring is that it kills lazy assumptions. An AB that goes 3–2 doesn’t automatically mean it was a good one. A first-pitch flyout isn’t automatically bad. If you swung at a good pitch and just missed, it likely grades out as a great decision that played out over time proves beneficial to a hitter. If you fouled off four chase pitches in a row and got out, that at-bat was likely not as heroic as it looked.

We’re not grading what happened, we’re grading why it happened — and whether that “why” is sustainable.

The Strike Zone is Real — Not Robo

Here’s a crucial detail: Paradigm doesn’t use a robo-zone to determine score decisions. It’s not just about what Trackman says is a strike. It’s about what actually gets called. The model is trained on what umpires call in college baseball. That means the zone isn’t a perfect square — it’s an oval, it’s human, it’s real. And that’s what hitters face.

This subtle tweak makes all the difference. Hitters won’t get punished for taking a pitch that an umpire rarely calls a strike just because it clipped the top of the TrackMan zone. They’re scored on the true called strike probability. It builds trust in the system. At the end of the day, if the goal is helping hitters win at-bats, the model has to reflect reality — not perfection.

Winning Starts with One Choice

Every at-bat boils down to the same decision over and over again. Most of the time, the difference between a productive hitter and an inconsistent one is how often they win those small choices. Paradigm’s report finally puts those choices under the microscope, and gives hitters the clarity to improve them.

As data becomes more and more democratized, the real advantage isn’t just having numbers , it’s having numbers that translate. Paradigm’s hitter reports with swing decision scoring bridges the gap between raw data and on-field performance.

• Coaches get insight into player approach without bias.
• Hitters get a clear picture of their decision-making and how it impacts success.
• Teams get a system to train, track, and improve approach in a measurable way.

In the arms race of player development, clarity wins. That’s what Paradigm delivers.

…

Paradigm provides cost-effective and customizable data reports that are applied directly to your program via scouting, self-scouting, and internal player development plans. If you are interested in insights like this for your program, DM us on X for a free consultation @paradigmpds, or email kylewellman@paradigmpds.com

Written by: Thomas Santana

Edited by: Kyle Wellman

Enter the Acute:Chronic Workload Ratio, or ACWR — a simple, often overlooked metric that can prevent injuries and prime pitchers for peak performance.

It’s a Marathon, Not a Sprint

Every pitcher likes to throw hard. Every pitcher has a heavy week once in awhile. However, a players body doesn’t just respond to one bullpen or one outing — , It responds to patterns.

The idea of workload as a pattern over time is what ACWR captures. It compares your recent throwing volume (acute workload, usually over 9 days) to your long-term average (chronic workload, over 28 days). Think of it like this:

• Acute = “What am I doing right now?”
• Chronic = “What has my body gotten used to?”

If you don’t have access to workload trackers like Pulse, RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion) can be used to track ACWR. While it’s less accurate and certainly allows for some subjectivity, it’s certainly better than the old “how ya feelin’, kid?” before a pitcher goes in for his 3rd outing of the week.

By tracking daily RPE over a 28 day rolling average, you can start to collect data to calculate your own ACWR (and it’s really easy). All you need to do is divide the 28 day average by the 9 day average. The ratio between the two tells you if you’re ramping up too fast, or not ramping up fast enough.

Here’s the general rule of thumb:

• 0.8 — 1.3 = Green zone. You’re training at a pace your body can handle.
• <0.8 = Undertrained. You’re not doing enough to stay ready.
• >1.3 = Red flag. You’re pushing harder than your body is prepared for.

If you jump from long toss twice a week to throwing live in front of scouts, that 1.3 turns into a 1.6 real fast , and your risk for injury rapidly increases.

Why Most Workload Management Fails

The majority of workload management in high school and college fails because of reactivity. Most programs wait until the pitcher says, “My arm feels off” before monitoring stress. By that point, the damage is mostly done.

What ACWR does is flip that. It gives you a way to spot trouble before it happens. It tells you when to pull back, when to push forward, and when to hold steady. College programs can’t prevent every injury, but you can make them a whole lot less likely.

The best part is, it’s not complicated. You don’t need motion capture or biomechanics data. Begin by tracking volume and intensity consistently. Count your throws and log the RPE (rate of perceived exertion). Calculate your 9-day and 28-day averages. The largest part of implementation is creating an environment where athletes recognize that being honest about how their arm is feeling is much more important than saying their arm feels good all the time.

The insight? That’s worth your entire season.

Workload Is Earned, Not Given

A lot of guys think throwing more is the key to building velo or improving command. That’s half-true. The problem is, most of them increase volume before their body is ready to handle it.

You don’t just get to throw harder and more often because you feel good today. You get to do that because you’ve built up your chronic workload gradually over weeks. That’s what separates healthy pitchers from hurt ones: not toughness, not genetics — preparation.

Want to throw a bullpen and a live AB session every week? Cool. Just make sure your chronic average can handle it. Want to back off for a few weeks? Great, but know that when you return, you need to build back up before going full intensity again.

ACWR isn’t about doing less. It’s about earning the right to do more.

The Offseason Is Where You Win or Lose

The healthiest pitchers in May are the ones who built up chronic load in December. The goal isn’t to hover at 1.0 forever. It’s to gradually ramp to 1.3 over the course of the offseason, then maintain. That’s typically the sweet spot. You want to live at that “game-ready” threshold. It’s not a line to fear , it’s a target to aim for.

Players who take all of December off and then try to cram in bullpens before spring camp? Their ACWR spikes, and their arms suffer. Meanwhile, the guys who slowly ramp intensity, plan recovery, and log each session? They stay healthy, their stuff holds deeper into the year, and they’re still throwing when it matters.

This Is What Health Looks Like Now

In a progressive player development setting, getting better doesn’t just mean weighted balls and bands. It means knowing what a pitcher’s body can handle, and managing your workload with the same detail you use to track your movement metrics. One of the common misconceptions about ACWR is that it is a reason to be scared of high workload volume: this couldn’t be further from the truth. Proper ACWR is an awesome way to inform players about the necessity of arm health and to ensure them that during the season they have prepared in the most data-informed way possible. ACWR won’t guarantee an injury-free training or playing environment, but it will ensure a player is physically and mentally ready to compete at the highest level.

Because in 2025, the most underrated ability is durability.

ACWR doesn’t get talked about on broadcast graphics. It won’t wow your teammates in a bullpen. But it might be the single most important number in your development. You can’t get better if you can’t stay on the field, and you can’t stay on the field if your workload is all over the place.

What Would a Ramp Up For The Season Look Like With ACWR in mind?

Let’s assume a pitcher is moderately ramped up. Over the course of 28 days, his average RPE is a 5, and he has 1 month to ramp up into the season. Assume he’s well rested and has a training workload aside from throwing that will not negatively affect high intent throwing. Let’s also include that the pitcher is aware of RPE and understands his need to be honest about it.

If a pitching coach was outlining a throwing plan for this athlete, he would need to take several things into account:

• What is this player’s role?
• How does this player handle stress? This does differ athlete to athlete
• How often do I need this player to perform at his peak level?

Once these questions have been answered, the coach can begin to construct a throwing plan. If the chronic workload is 5 over 28 days, and the last week has been 3 bullpens that make the acute workload equal to an average of 7, his current ACWR is a 1.4. This means that he’s on the fringe of his acute workload being too high. In order to increase workload, a coach should theoretically provide the athlete with a slightly less, but fairly similar, workload for the upcoming week. Let’s assume he threw 2 high intent bullpens last week at an 8 RPE each, took 3 “yellow” days at a 5 RPE, and then had 2 recovery days at a 4 RPE (8+8+5+5+5+4+4 = 39, 39/7 = 5.57).

The acute workload for this week would be 5.57.

In order to lower this, the coach might just duplicate the previous week with one small change to make the first bullpen of the week a shortbox at a 6 RPE. Taking one high intent day and making it moderate just changed the acute score 5.28 (37/7), which in turn takes the ACWR to a 1.056 (Remember, anything between 0.8 and 1.3 is considered the green zone). By making one small adjustment to the athlete’s work for the upcoming week, the coach has taken his workload from slightly overtrained to completely optimal.

…

Paradigm provides cost-effective and customizable data reports that are applied directly to your program via scouting, self-scouting, and internal player development plans. If you are interested in insights like this for your program, DM us on X for a free consultation @paradigmpds, or email kylewellman@paradigmpds.com.

Written By: Thomas Santana & Kyle Wellman